Catcher's Box

[HugoTafurst]

... but is in definite violation if F2's glove is over any part of HP...

Finally got together with my book.
Looked up RS #8 (as mentioned later for support) to confirm that the above statement is definitely false:

Rule Supplement 8 (Fast Pitch)

"Catchers must remain in the catcher's box until the pitch is released"

so far so good, but reading on:

"The catcher may move closer to the plate without penalty when the batter is positioned in the front of the batters box during the pitch. However the catcher must, at all times, still avoid catcher's obstruction as the batter still has the right to the entire batter's box.

Obstruction does not require contact between the catcher and the bat or batter......."

So by simply holding the glove over home plate, there is no IP or obstruction.

Okay... wait ... The "catcher may move closer to the plate" ... or " the catcher may be out of the catchers box " ? If it says the Catcher must be in the catchers box, shouldn't it say as an exception that the 'catcher may be out of the catchers box', not 'move closer to the plate' ? I am NOT trying to be an a-hole ...

OK, maybe... but the way I'm reading it is if first you say:

"Catchers must remain in the catcher's box until the pitch is released"

You have already said that the catcher can be anywhere she wants (including "closer to the plate) as long as she remains in the box.....

then you say:

"The catcher may move closer to the plate without penalty when the batter is positioned in the front of the batter's box during the pitch."

you are allowing her out of the box.....

[GIMNEPIWO]

Okay... wait ... The "catcher may move closer to the plate" ... or " the catcher may be out of the catchers box " ? If it says the Catcher must be in the catchers box, shouldn't it say as an exception that the 'catcher may be out of the catchers box', not 'move closer to the plate' ? I am NOT trying to be an a-hole ...

Well..........

This is really simple and, of course, some are trying to outthink this and you are going to hurt yourself if you keep it up.

Quite obviously if the comment is the catcher may move up without penalty, it would be OUT of the box or there would be no penaty from which to be excluded. BTW, nothing new here. A quick check showed this has been in the Rules Supplement (prev. Points of Emphasis) since at least 2000.

And in twelve years I am the first maroon that came up with this ? If it says the Catcher can move up ... and it says the catcher must be in the box ... And I ( or you ) put the two of those things together ... That says to me that the Catcher may move up but still needs to be inside the box rather than the catcher can move up and leave the box ... I have been told by you and other experienced Blues ( Wade for sure ) not to look for things that aren't there ... But it seems in this case you may be ... ( Said with the utmost respect )

[MTR]

Fm NCAA Rule Book:

1.24 Catcher’s Box
The area to which the catcher is restricted from the time the pitcher steps on the
pitcher’s plate until she releases the pitch. Exception: When the batter is positioned
in the front of the batter’s box, the catcher may move closer without effect.

[UmpSteve]

Okay... wait ... The "catcher may move closer to the plate" ... or " the catcher may be out of the catchers box " ? If it says the Catcher must be in the catchers box, shouldn't it say as an exception that the 'catcher may be out of the catchers box', not 'move closer to the plate' ? I am NOT trying to be an a-hole ...

Well..........

This is really simple and, of course, some are trying to outthink this and you are going to hurt yourself if you keep it up.

Quite obviously if the comment is the catcher may move up without penalty, it would be OUT of the box or there would be no penaty from which to be excluded. BTW, nothing new here. A quick check showed this has been in the Rules Supplement (prev. Points of Emphasis) since at least 2000.

And in twelve years I am the first maroon that came up with this ? If it says the Catcher can move up ... and it says the catcher must be in the box ... And I ( or you ) put the two of those things together ... That says to me that the Catcher may move up but still needs to be inside the box rather than the catcher can move up and leave the box ... I have been told by you and other experienced Blues ( Wade for sure ) not to look for things that aren't there ... But it seems in this case you may be ... ( Said with the utmost respect )

No, you aren't. But this isn't the first or only time that the wording isn't as clear as what is intended.

Bottom line: The catcher's box has three sides that the catcher must stay within (in ASA, NFHS, NCAA, and ISF); the two sides and the back (not that anyone I know of has ever violated to the back). The front of the box is where ever the catcher can and wishes to advance where it is both safe and does not obstruct the batter.

Consider this; is there a line drawn behind the plate between the boxes? No. Why not? Because there is no need for one .........

As a side note, there is an approved NCAA ruling that catcher obstruction is NOT to be called, and, in fact, batter interference is to be ruled if a batter steps back in the batters box (yes, even while still in the batters box) in a move judged to be intended solely to make contact with the catcher. Batters are protected to be unimpeded in efforts to contact the ball; but the phrase that the batter is entitled to the entire batters box isn't a safe haven to interfere. Not sure I ever saw that in ASA or NFHS, but I believe I would rule the same based on the rationale.

[tcannizzo]

Thanks Steve, now help me out with the other part about F2 not being allowed to hang the glove over home plate. Would this relate to the requirement that all defenders must be positioned in fair territory, except the catcher...with F2's glove over HP, wouldn't that put F2 in fair territory?

[UmpSteve]

Thanks Steve, now help me out with the other part about F2 not being allowed to hang the glove over home plate. Would this relate to the requirement that all defenders must be positioned in fair territory, except the catcher...with F2's glove over HP, wouldn't that put F2 in fair territory?

Tony, I have to call that a myth, not a rule. No where in the rule book, nor any manual I have ever read.

Answer me this. Not that it makes any logical sense, but if F3 and/or F5 stood with both feet in fair territory, but holding their arms (and/or gloves) in foul territory, would that place them in foul territory?

By all rules, absolutely not. Players are judged to be in any position based on the location of their body parts touching the ground; be it batters box, live/dead ball territory, pitchers circle, and yes, fair or foul territory. That DOESN'T affect fair or foul balls, which are judged by the position of the ball, but DOES affect live or dead balls, judged by the position of the player making contact (if the ball itself doesn't touch dead ball territory).

The closest I could come to what you are asking is if a catcher caught a pitch before it crossed any part of the plate; could it be a strike? No, we can't extrapolate the ball's flight, it must reach and touch the strike zone to be a strike. But OVER the plate? If it touched any part of the strike zone, it is simply a strike.

[Bretman]

Not that this would necessarily apply to softball, but maybe this is where the "reaching out over the plate" notion comes from.

From the NFHS baseball case book:

8.1.1 SITUATION F

R1 is on second base. After B2 takes his position in batter's box, F2 clearly reaches out over home plate (a) prior to; (b) after F1 has made a movement that has committed him to pitch; or (c) to receive the pitch.

RULING: It is catcher obstruction in both (b) and (c), and B2 is awarded first base and R1 is awarded third base only if he was stealing on the pitch. F2 may not catch the pitch until it has passed home plate. In (a), there is no violation provided F2 and his equipment are removed from the area over home plate before pitcher has made a movement that committed him to pitch. (8-3-1c)

[UmpSteve]

Not that this would necessarily apply to softball, but maybe this is where the "reaching out over the plate" notion comes from.

From the NFHS baseball case book:

8.1.1 SITUATION F

R1 is on second base. After B2 takes his position in batter's box, F2 clearly reaches out over home plate (a) prior to; (b) after F1 has made a movement that has committed him to pitch; or (c) to receive the pitch.

RULING: It is catcher obstruction in both (b) and (c), and B2 is awarded first base and R1 is awarded third base only if he was stealing on the pitch. F2 may not catch the pitch until it has passed home plate. In (a), there is no violation provided F2 and his equipment are removed from the area over home plate before pitcher has made a movement that committed him to pitch. (8-3-1c)

With baseball batters almost universally in the back of the box, a catcher reaching over the plate would understandably be disconcerting to a batter. With the majority of softball batters in the FRONT of the box, the plate is not an issue to their hitting zone, just the strike zone.

I believe that philosophy and thought process is why softball rules eschew the baseball rulings. If it affects nothing (and is actually helpful to umpires, because 1) where the catcher touches it at or over the plate is, in fact, the very point to judge ball or strike, 2) catchers up there minimize and better control balls in the dirt, so comfort level increases, and 3) pitchers SEE the target spot, not visualize where it should be), why create a rule making it illegal?

[MTR]

As a side note, there is an approved NCAA ruling that catcher obstruction is NOT to be called, and, in fact, batter interference is to be ruled if a batter steps back in the batters box (yes, even while still in the batters box) in a move judged to be intended solely to make contact with the catcher. Batters are protected to be unimpeded in efforts to contact the ball; but the phrase that the batter is entitled to the entire batters box isn't a safe haven to interfere. Not sure I ever saw that in ASA or NFHS, but I believe I would rule the same based on the rationale.

The highlighted portion is why I wonder why they felt the need for such an addendum. I believe this would be true anytime the umpire judges the batter's actions to be that of hitting the catcher instead of the ball regardless of the rule set.